St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-04-16

OF married woman to adopt any name she
chooses, has two sides to it. AS an abstract
proposition there is no reason why any
human being may not select his or her own
name, nor for that matter is there any
reason why person should be compelled to
nave any name at all. Giving person name
Is only convenient form for identifying that
person. Still a liamelesS person would have
great many vicisSitudes in this life If
there were many nameless people in the
world there would be bad mix. Even the
untutored savage recognizes this fact and
DestowS name on his infant as soon as it
Is born. ADAM and EVE were named as
soon as they were created, and the first ex-
ercise of ADAMS royal power over the do
mlnlon which COP had given him, twas
10 give names to the animals, the fishes
and the fowls. So that while person may
possess the abstract right to discard name
altogether, still it would produce chaotic
condition of affairs if everybody did so.
Inc good OF society requires that every
human being shall have a name to distin-
guish him or her from every other person.
The name we bear is the badge of our iden-
decision must be contrary to public policy
and good morals. The old-time legal the
DRY that the identity of the woman
S merged into that of her hus-
band at marriage, is exploded The
law now regards each as a separate person,
invested with distinct rights. Yet there
are conditions of the marital relation which
seem to mae it imperative that husband and
wife shall bear the same name. If it were
not so there would be confusion in adj
ministering the laws of descent, and sooner
or later there would grow out of it dis
turbed condition OF property titles. But the
Kansas decision opens the door to still more
serious troubles. 1t will produce confusion
and most likely discord in families. In the
first place THOMAS JONES marries Miss
SALLIE SMITH. The bride either becomes
Mrs. THOMAS JONES or remains Miss
SALLIE SMITH all her life as she may elect.
II she prefers the latter she will not. in the
natural course of affairs, have the same in
tereSt in her husband as if she bore his
name. The marriage vows may have been
made in due form, the marriage ceremony
may have been celebrated according to the
laws OF the land, ami yet if Mr.. JONES and
Miss SMITH continue to live together as man
and wife it must have demoralizing effect.
The tendency will inevitably be toward
loosening the marital ties-to give lighter
impression Of the sacredness of the mar
riage relation. Then again rises the ques-
ton, whose name shall the children
born of this wedlock bear? VIII
they be JoNEsEs or SMITHS? Or
will they have the right to elect to which
side of the house they shall belong? viii
part of them be SMITHS and the rest of
them sail under the patroDymic of JONES?
Under these conditions isn't there danger of
house being divided against itself? The
family will divide into factions. The
Smiths will be jealous of the JoNEsEs.
PaterfamiliaS JONES will not feel the same
interest in the SMITH children that he will
in the ones who bear his own name, and
when he comes to divide up his property he
is sure to show partiality. The Kansas
supreme judges evidently didn't realize
how many heartburnings and quarrels and
family discords they were generating when
they announced that decision, OF they would
certainly have withheld it. Woman is en-
titled to all her rights. of which there is
none more sacred than that of bearing her
husbands name. When the husbands
name becomes reproach to the wife, then
she is justified in asking for divorce.